State pension board postpones decision on annuities

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State pension officials say they want more information from lawmakers before they consider abandoning a plan to privatize one part of a retirement plan for teachers and public employees.

Members of the Indiana Public Retirement System Board of Trustees said Friday they aren’t sure if they can meet a legislative request that they administer an annuity program – which some retired employees use to stretch their savings through retirement – without creating an unfunded liability for the system.

So the board instructed the agency’s staff to work with the legislative Pension Management Oversight Commission to better understand the request.

One lawmaker – Rep. David Niezgodski, D-South Bend – said he was “disappointed” the board opted to postpone and seek more information.

The annuity is one of a two-part retirement system administered by the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund and Teachers’ Retirement Fund. The system includes a defined benefit plan, which is funded by government and schools for its employees, and a savings account that can be funded by employees or employers.

Upon retirement, the worker can take the savings account as a lump sum, roll it into a different retirement account, or convert it to an annuity to spread its benefits over the length of retirement.

Currently, retirees who opt to annuitize their savings can do so with a 7.5-percent interest rate, which is well above market rates and the amount the state is earning off the money that’s invested. The gap creates an unfunded liability that retirement board members decided was no longer acceptable.

So the group voted in July to use market rates for the annuities – and hire an outside vendor to establish the rates and administer the program.

That drew criticism from retirees and the groups that represent them and lawmakers spent hours last month taking testimony on the issue. The change is expected to reduce annuity payouts to future retirees by an average of $900 to $2,100 annually.

Lawmakers were sympathetic to state officials’ concerns that the interest rate is too high to be sustainable – but not to the idea of hiring an outside administer for the annuities. That’s in part because they believe the move would likely push the annuity interest rate lower.

So the advisory commission voted to recommend that the pension agency keep the administration of the annuities in house while establishing an interest rate that doesn’t create an unfunded liability.

But pension officials have argued that by turning the system over to an outside company, the state shifts the financial risks away from taxpayers and retirees. Keeping the annuity program in house means more risk for both groups, said Jeff Hutson, a spokesman for the pensions agency.

The Public Retirement System Board took up the legislative recommendation at a meeting Friday and opted not to act.

“The board was concerned that annuitizing in-house could create unfunded liabilities,” Hutson said. “So, they instructed staff to work with PMOC members for clarification.”

But Niezgodski said there’s no reason for clarification.

“PMOC’s unanimous decision was not confusing nor was there any conflict to leave any doubt about our intent,” he said. “The trustees must accept their responsibilities to the thousands of employees who have entrusted their futures to the state. It is not the time to dump that responsibility onto private interests whose greatest concern is their company quarterly earnings and profit margins.”


  • Re: Natacha
    As with absolutely everything Republican lawmakers do, they are watching out for taxpayer dollars. I would rather NOT see my tax dollars go to fund yet another mismanaged pension. Does Detroit ring a bell? Governments should privatize much more than they do now because they aren't efficient at much of anything... Affordable Care Act ring a bell? The management fees paid to a qualified firm to administer the program will either be less than the cost of incapable people doing it in house or will be more productive cover their cost.
  • Indiana, the wealth-worshipping capital
    As with absolutely everything Republican lawmakers do, they look out first and foremost for their campaign supporters. First and foremost, they're going to try to transfer management of the money to some company which will help itself to management fees. This is what the battle is really over. The advisory commission came up with a reasonable solution, so it's not surprising that it was rejected.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?